LIBERAL TALKY-TALK, OR, TOXIC GOSSIP

Headlines this afternoon from across the range of internet newssites emphasize with extreme prejudice the growing madness from Liberal sources, as also Democrat operatives, such that there’s little rhyme nor reason I can find other than the ongoing Liberal intent of power for power’s sake: “the end justifies the means” at work, Howard Dean’s mantra, Karl Marx’s philosophy.

The Washington Post provides a terse, spartan ditty about a resignation by a “Democratic Organizer” due to their use of racially pejorative speech about George Allen — with damaging, condemning intent (used the term in attempt to demean Allen) — and that’s all that’s written: no fanfare, no “firestorm,” no media hammering on and on about the behavior of speech. Yet, previous to this, when George Allen used a racially pejorative term — yet used that term in good humor and affection for someone he knew — there’s been no end to the yammering on about Allen by nearly all news sources, and the Washington Post, specifically.

The article even applies affirming “good” aspects to the behavior by “Democrats” (“I’ve never heard her name,” Todd said. “She is a Weed for Congress staffer, and they took care of it right away”). Yet this same source has been relentless in disparaging articles surrounding George Allen’s one, isolated use of a term intended in humor, used at a picnic in seeming affection, not for condemning, marginalizing nor cruel reasons.

Dave Vignola, 55, from Gibbstown, New Jersey, paid $750 apiece for three tickets and called it a unique opportunity to see the singer he had been following for decades. “She may never come around again,” he said.

“‘She may never come around again,’ he said.”

I hope she doesn’t. Streisand performs a crude ethic, displays a crude mind and her consequently crude behavior supports that. Yet she’s presented heroically in this article. I always take pause with people such as Streisand who allege they’re “raising funds for (foundation/healthcare/causes, etc.)” and yet use that premise for self promotion, especially when it involves political ideology that is based upon the denigration of others, as is the message from Streisand.

No, Streisand’s raising money for political reasons. That some people may be affected on a humanitarian basis in that process is a good — even great — thing but without any identification as to who is being funded, to the specific helps rendered, all that money raised going to what, the only message (performance, in this case) that the media promotes and perpetuates is the political message. The “humanitarian” suggested undertone is buried in there in one sentence yet so generalized as to be unreliable (“Streisand, 64, a longtime liberal activist, said she was coming out of retirement to raise money for her foundation, which supports a range of causes related to the environment, education, health care and other issues”).

That could mean she provides Toyota Prius’ or green cotton shirts to all her employees (“to raise money [for]…the environment”), it could mean she makes sure that the school near her residence/s is/are well walled off so as not to annoy her with noise and traffic (“…education”), it could mean a lot of general things in reality of applicaton of that “money” she raises for “her foundation.”

What’s peculiar is that the recipients of all that largesse are not identified (are they ever), but her “snipe” about the President of the United States (because of Streisand’s “liberal activis[m]”) is headlined. Everyone by this date is familiar with her utter silence as to Bill Clinton’s proven ethical deviance, by comparison.
Obviously, from Streisand’s crude appearance at the recent Bill Clinton “Global Initiative”meet, the “other issues” she’s raising funds for remains one of Liberal politics associated with Clinton and because of that, with the Democrat Party.

The pretenses by way of grandiosity in the arts, however, the duplicities involved and implied, are more of why I consider Streisand to be a crude person.

If anything defines the Liberal bias among news “reporting” sources, this one does.

Dennis Hastert is said to be “defiant” which IMPLIES that Hastert’s rebelling against an authority — and accordingly, given Hastert’s position as House Majority Leader (AND, of course, a Republican, his opposition the Democrat Party), the DNC would be, therefore, the implied authority in relationship to Hastert. “Defiance” and “rebelling” are acts of opposition, which means there’s an implied greater authority involved. Therefore, Hastert’s headlined as being in opposition to the implied greater source of authority (Democrats) — which of course is not realistic, nor even accurate but to read this headline you’d think that Hastert was a delinquent.

I agree (wholeheartedly) that Hastert should not only not resign as House Majority Leader, but that there is no reason for him to do so, that, as Vice President Cheney puts it, “it makes no sense for Hastert to resign.” It only makes “sense” within a power-structure movement from Democrats/Liberals in Congress; so far, Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader, Democrat, Liberal) has “called for” every Repblican to “resign” and does so in some rote, dummy fashion in regard to any issues that part ways with her power-grab politics.

So there it is again: the power-grab politics, “the end justifies the means” and to Democrats, that appears to be their campaign premise and their party politic because they have nothing else to offer except power-grab politics followed by predictable ongoing Liberal power-grab politics: the politics of fascism from — used realistically here, not in the trendy sense — fascism as eventual formula from Liberalism and Liberals.

Because the conclusion of actions — the ENDS — never renders any MEANS acceptable. The “means” should remain adaptable dependent upon ethics, not rendered generic based upon “ends.” The politics that use the ENDS to justify ANY means concludes in the liberal of all Liberalism and that is fascism, authored by Karl Marx, father of socialist lies, supported by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, the DNC and nearly all Liberals as political behavior: “the end justifies the means.”

This is what the Democrats intend by way of this power-grab politic, this is what they offer the nation and world: higher taxes, increased social spending, curtailment of border security, increased deconstruction of national borders and national regard based upon social demands, manipulation of our Constitution to reduce offense to demand, depowering our national defense, utter confusion in the Middle East (via “increased talks” — it’s the Protection-From-Terrorism-By-Talky-Talk Plan), a government by way of a Supreme Court panel, increased difficulty in energy development, ever expanding public education bureaucracies, etc.

But what really bothers me is that if and as the Democrats ever again assume majority rule in our Congress, there would be increases in illegal immigration, increased demands upon U.S. taxpayers to pay for that in all the social-program array associated with it, and worse, an expansion of the big, tawdry grey area of coarse personalities (they’re a “club” if you accept Clinton’s media spin and everyone else is “the other side”) promoting a very closed-society for the ‘beautiful,’ fascist, cool people. Vanity is the best that Democrats have in mind, self indulgence, an ethical jello.

Vanity: the cruel indifference that disparages others in it’s effort to self promote as idol. I can’t think of anything worse from a nation under Clinton, lectured by Pelosi, commanded by the Supreme Court and bare essentials doled out if and when there is subservience enough to appease the vanity, and, no one dares to mention God, especially the name of Jesus Christ. Vanity: it is blinded by the light.